French anti-P2P law cuts back pirating, but music sales still decline

The French authority Hadopi released a report on the effects of its law …

France's three-strikes anti-piracy law is one of the strictest in the world. It employs private companies to scan file-sharing networks for copyright infringement and sends warnings to pirates if they're caught red-handed. The law, enforced by a French authority called Hadopi, was instated 17 months ago to the applause of music copyright holders and their representatives. Although an early study originally showed piracy had actually increased after the anti-P2P law passed, Hadopi released a report this March saying French ISP users had significantly decreased their illegal file sharing. Despite that announcement, the French music industry still saw a decline in revenue.

Hadopi used the reports of two different companies to ascertain the decrease in pirated traffic. One metric said illegal data sharing on peer-to-peer networks decreased by 43 percent; another survey used a different methodology and saw a 66 percent decrease in illegal P2P traffic. While Hadopi only monitors peer-to-peer networks, its recent study noted there's "no indication that there has been a massive transfer in forms of use to streaming technologies or direct downloads."

For all the fanfare in Hadopi's 14-page report celebrating the crackdown on music and video piracy, the music and video industries in France did not see increased profit in 2011 compared to the year before. The overall recorded music industry saw a 3.9 percent loss, and France's video market dropped 2.7 percent overall.

The depressed sales likely won't take copyright holders off the warpath. In fact, both music and video industries saw significant increases in purchases of digital media. In music, download revenues increased by 18.4 percent. Streaming and subscriptions revenue grew by 73 percent, largely due to the rising popularity of Spotify and Deezer. According to a domestic video publisher's group, video-on-demand sales increased 50 percent.

An article on the French website Numerama also noted that streaming music played a large part in increasing sales of digital music downloads, and surprisingly, concert tickets. Streaming music did not, however, influence a user's impetus to buy CDs.

These numbers show that despite the hemming and hawing about piracy eating up entertainment industry revenue, the transition from physical discs to digital files is a huge factor in negative growth. No matter what, music industry officials are unlikely to let up on piracy. More than likely, they will adopt the argument that media sales would be even lower without ISP monitoring.

Personally, I keep checking back for the pirate bay shirt that I want to be in stock in my size. It'll be $27, plus shipping, for one stupid t-shirt. Crazily overpriced. But... Lord knows they've earned it. So, I'm actually willing to pay for things. Just not the content industry's content. They can shove off.

Actually, it has been shown (don't make me look for the link please) that 'piracy' will not lead to losses and has sometimes the opposite effect. People are more exposed to other music, movies and series and are willing to pay for it then. So yeah, no big surprise here.

in my opinion, mainstream music is incredibly bad these days. who really cares if bieber only makes 10 million this year off his latest single, manufactured by the goons who still think the internet is "da great big evil" if they had it their way, we'd all live in a silent world where you'd have to pay for the privilege of hearing whatever it is they tell you is 'the next big thing' i, for one, am okay with letting this antiquated business model die.

More than likely, they will adopt the argument that media sales would be even lower without ISP monitoring.

So is the decline in revenue worse in neighboring countries? Come on, Ars, where's the analysis?

Rixalabur wrote:

Actually, it has been shown (don't make me look for the link please) that 'piracy' will not lead to losses and has sometimes the opposite effect. People are more exposed to other music, movies and series and are willing to pay for it then. So yeah, no big surprise here.

I would have thought that this would depend on the particular content in question. Obscurity is the main problem for emerging and independent artists, so infringing downloads should help them. However I can't see too many people getting their first exposure to the Beibers and Lady Gagas of the world through filesharing. I guess you COULD argue that this means that filesharing levels the playing field, in which case it might have a net positive effect in terms of "promotion of useful arts and sciences"???

Personally I go out of my way to give as little to these companies as possible without resorting to piracy.

If you're prepared to wait, most content becomes very affordable within a year or two and your conscience can be clear that you're not providing much money for these evil corporate interests to then spend on bribery of elected officials and distorting our culture and democracy.

To be honest I'm quickly coming to the opinion that our societies would be better off if these companies didn't exist. Sure we wouldn't have some of the big budget productions but to be honest I'm quite happy with less over produced work which makes up for it by actually being interesting and doesn't mean my money is going to companies who are actively destroying the society I live in. Plus we'd still have the output of public broadcasters which is often of a much higher quality than the dreck put out by commercial companies.

Here lately the only way I support the artists that I like is going to their live shows And usually I can buy a CD or CDs for dirt cheap prices (5-10 US dollars each on average). Plus I get a night of great music with my girlfriend or other buddies.

I support the artists I like, but most of what I like is out of print, so I don't have much recourse for legal purchases. As far as newer music goes most of it is drivel and I would never buy or download it anyway.

/And with things like Freecorder, I can get pretty much get any kind of music I want without using a P2P network.

I find that it hardly gets commented on but in my opinion, when you boil down piracy to what it really is you find that its really about control. Piracy is the disruption of networks that otherwise managed and controled the dissemination of knowledge, power, assets, physical things, digital things, etc.

Every step along the way from being hunters and gatherers to facebooking on internet is the culmination of human beings able to share. We've done that through language, writing, books, radio, etc. There are hundred of vectors to how we share and distribute human "consciousness". In my view piracy is simply a label on any particular vector that circumvents previous vectors under control by centralized bodies.

An easy example is books. Books were at a time viewed as dangerous and destructive as sharing a song today. The church at a time was belligerent towards printing, labeled it piracy and blasphemous. Quite simply because it equated it as a shift in power that allowed far more people access to a copy of the Bible and which they couldn't guarantee they could control. I won't go on in detail on the potential power ramifications.

If I bought a physical book today and managed to circulate it amongst a million people I would hardly be charged with piracy. Not only does the notion sound ludicrous to most but it would be impossible to control such a vector. If I did the same with an ebook, today that would be looked upon quite differently because control can be exerted. (Aside, piracy is piracy no matter the magnitude).

I assure you, under the same paradigm that we live in today, if someone found a way to be able to track and erect gateways to everything you know, it would be done. Circumventing those networks would be equally labeled as piracy much as what we are experiencing today.

Most of the stuff that's argued about - the law, money, etc are non starter issues in my book. They are all part of the network and those will change. What I do know won't change is that something else after the internet as we know it will come about multiplying the number of vectors we'd be capable of using to share. And someone will try to control that.

I find that it hardly gets commented on but in my opinion, when you boil down piracy to what it really is you find that its really about control. Piracy is the disruption of networks that otherwise managed and controled the dissemination of knowledge, power, assets, physical things, digital things, etc.

Every step along the way from being hunters and gatherers to facebooking on internet is the culmination of human beings able to share. We've done that through language, writing, books, radio, etc. There are hundred of vectors to how we share and distribute human "consciousness". In my view piracy is simply a label on any particular vector that circumvents previous vectors under control by centralized bodies.

An easy example is books. Books were at a time viewed as dangerous and destructive as sharing a song today. The church at a time was belligerent towards printing, labeled it piracy and blasphemous. Quite simply because it equated it as a shift in power that allowed far more people access to a copy of the Bible and which they couldn't guarantee they could control. I won't go on in detail on the potential power ramifications.

If I bought a physical book today and managed to circulate it amongst a million people I would hardly be charged with piracy. Not only does the notion sound ludicrous to most but it would be impossible to control such a vector. If I did the same with an ebook, today that would be looked upon quite differently because control can be exerted. (Aside, piracy is piracy no matter the magnitude).

I assure you, under the same paradigm that we live in today, if someone found a way to be able to track and erect gateways to everything you know, it would be done. Circumventing those networks would be equally labeled as piracy much as what we are experiencing today.

Most of the stuff that's argued about - the law, money, etc are non starter issues in my book. They are all part of the network and those will change. What I do know won't change is that something else after the internet as we know it will come about multiplying the number of vectors we'd be capable of using to share. And someone will try to control that.

I really fail to believe how you think you can compare the breaking of bondage of church and religion with the advent of national literacy to some dudes taking something without paying for it and claiming as an excuse "well, they would never have bought it anyway".

Wow, you're really delusional if you think they are in any way remotely connected.

These numbers show that despite the hemming and hawing about piracy eating up entertainment industry revenue, the transition from physical discs to digital files is a huge factor in negative growth. No matter what, music industry officials are unlikely to let up on piracy. More than likely, they will adopt the argument that media sales would be even lower without ISP monitoring.

Thing is, though, its really difficult to tell whether or not this was effective. If you compare to neighboring countries, that would be more telling - good points of comparison would be the UK and Germany, countries with relatively similar economic status to France.

Quote:

Actually, it has been shown (don't make me look for the link please) that 'piracy' will not lead to losses and has sometimes the opposite effect. People are more exposed to other music, movies and series and are willing to pay for it then. So yeah, no big surprise here.

Actually, no such thing has been shown. I've seen studies claiming that there were massive losses due to piracy. Who is right? Not the pirates, that's for sure.

The truth is that piracy does indeed hurt sales; the idea that pirates end up buying more stuff is rather false, because they often end up buying different things than they would have otherwise. How much it hurts sales is difficult to quantify, though I've seen 10% a few times and it sounds reasonable.

I suspect that it varies immensely from case to case, though, with some being harmed much more than others.

I find that it hardly gets commented on but in my opinion, when you boil down piracy to what it really is you find that its really about control. Piracy is the disruption of networks that otherwise managed and controled the dissemination of knowledge, power, assets, physical things, digital things, etc.

Uh, that's the whole point of copyright - the one with it gets to decide where, how and when to share his works. As for the rest of your premise...

Quote:

Every step along the way from being hunters and gatherers to facebooking on internet is the culmination of human beings able to share. We've done that through language, writing, books, radio, etc. There are hundred of vectors to how we share and distribute human "consciousness". In my view piracy is simply a label on any particular vector that circumvents previous vectors under control by centralized bodies.

An easy example is books. Books were at a time viewed as dangerous and destructive as sharing a song today. The church at a time was belligerent towards printing, labeled it piracy and blasphemous. Quite simply because it equated it as a shift in power that allowed far more people access to a copy of the Bible and which they couldn't guarantee they could control. I won't go on in detail on the potential power ramifications.

You are equating the catholic church's behavior of burning people alive for owning a bible to sharing a song. The church did it since if people read the bible, nearly all of the catholic's teachings would be revealed to be bull shit. A few during that time risked their lives to translate the bible into modern languages just to be able to get the word out.

OTOH, you not being able to get a song of *random pop artist* for free isnt' going to harm you one bit; in fact, it probably will keep your intelligence level from going downhill.

Quote:

If I bought a physical book today and managed to circulate it amongst a million people I would hardly be charged with piracy.Not only does the notion sound ludicrous to most but it would be impossible to control such a vector. If I did the same with an ebook, today that would be looked upon quite differently because control can be exerted. (Aside, piracy is piracy no matter the magnitude).

Maybe we are agreeing here. Yes you would. But why would anyone go through the effort of doing so is probably why no one thinks it actually happens. Computers just make it so much easier to duplicate digital data.

Less than 1% of the public knows how to use torrents (P2P networks). Stopping piracy will not change much. Not sure if this article is real proof of it, but that's been my thoughts all along. It is getting harder to find that latest episode of family guy or fringe, or what ever else I am trying to find. I now have to wait the 8 days .

The anti P2P bull crap is surely affecting me. Most of the stuff I want is not for sale any way.So the only way I could find it is through torrents. Killing P2P is killing the last known accessibility of certain information. Therefore killing content forever.

I really fail to believe how you think you can compare the breaking of bondage of church and religion with the advent of national literacy to some dudes taking something without paying for it and claiming as an excuse "well, they would never have bought it anyway".

Wow, you're really delusional if you think they are in any way remotely connected.

What is different from the (now catholic) church holding the only realistic means of copying bibles (monks writing each page by hand) to the big media companies holding the only means of copying and distribution recorded entertainment?

Remember that any distribution channel that can carry pirated media can also carry the latest indie creation, and this at a far lower cost than tradition distribution means. But right governments around the world is doing the equivalent of allowing the church to place their own guards (or order the city guards) at the city gates to check every person coming or going for printed bibles. And when one is found, not only do they take it away, they take the person into slavery as well (consider the sums coming up in the judgements so far).

And what if the book they carry look too much like the bible (or maybe holds a few bible quotes), they take that as well. With hardly a "sorry" once the mistake is noticed (DMCA takedowns of all kinds).

I find that it hardly gets commented on but in my opinion, when you boil down piracy to what it really is you find that its really about control. Piracy is the disruption of networks that otherwise managed and controled the dissemination of knowledge, power, assets, physical things, digital things, etc.

Every step along the way from being hunters and gatherers to facebooking on internet is the culmination of human beings able to share. We've done that through language, writing, books, radio, etc. There are hundred of vectors to how we share and distribute human "consciousness". In my view piracy is simply a label on any particular vector that circumvents previous vectors under control by centralized bodies.

An easy example is books. Books were at a time viewed as dangerous and destructive as sharing a song today. The church at a time was belligerent towards printing, labeled it piracy and blasphemous. Quite simply because it equated it as a shift in power that allowed far more people access to a copy of the Bible and which they couldn't guarantee they could control. I won't go on in detail on the potential power ramifications.

If I bought a physical book today and managed to circulate it amongst a million people I would hardly be charged with piracy. Not only does the notion sound ludicrous to most but it would be impossible to control such a vector. If I did the same with an ebook, today that would be looked upon quite differently because control can be exerted. (Aside, piracy is piracy no matter the magnitude).

I assure you, under the same paradigm that we live in today, if someone found a way to be able to track and erect gateways to everything you know, it would be done. Circumventing those networks would be equally labeled as piracy much as what we are experiencing today.

Most of the stuff that's argued about - the law, money, etc are non starter issues in my book. They are all part of the network and those will change. What I do know won't change is that something else after the internet as we know it will come about multiplying the number of vectors we'd be capable of using to share. And someone will try to control that.

I really fail to believe how you think you can compare the breaking of bondage of church and religion with the advent of national literacy to some dudes taking something without paying for it and claiming as an excuse "well, they would never have bought it anyway".

Wow, you're really delusional if you think they are in any way remotely connected.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the reaction.

No where did I explicitly make claim to the connection you highlighted, it didn't even cross my mind. My post was really short and cut out a lot of the steps and links I was alluding to. I didn't expect everyone to make the same. I didn't bring up the church to make a reference to religion, literacy or equate the two with copying a song. I was referring to the issue of control (the premise of my argument). Both have at its locus control and controlling the dissemination of "information" if you will. Before you had to be a priest to have access to the Bible and selected to even be one of the scribes that made copies. With a printing press anyone could make a copy. They could even alter it outside the discretion of the church and what could they do? At first impression, when the technology did first appear, the fear was that they could do nothing.

I never brought up anything about paying for stuff or claims of why people pirate songs today, but thanks for the attack and insult.

I find that it hardly gets commented on but in my opinion, when you boil down piracy to what it really is you find that its really about control. Piracy is the disruption of networks that otherwise managed and controled the dissemination of knowledge, power, assets, physical things, digital things, etc.

Uh, that's the whole point of copyright - the one with it gets to decide where, how and when to share his works. As for the rest of your premise...

Quote:

Every step along the way from being hunters and gatherers to facebooking on internet is the culmination of human beings able to share. We've done that through language, writing, books, radio, etc. There are hundred of vectors to how we share and distribute human "consciousness". In my view piracy is simply a label on any particular vector that circumvents previous vectors under control by centralized bodies.

An easy example is books. Books were at a time viewed as dangerous and destructive as sharing a song today. The church at a time was belligerent towards printing, labeled it piracy and blasphemous. Quite simply because it equated it as a shift in power that allowed far more people access to a copy of the Bible and which they couldn't guarantee they could control. I won't go on in detail on the potential power ramifications.

You are equating the catholic church's behavior of burning people alive for owning a bible to sharing a song. The church did it since if people read the bible, nearly all of the catholic's teachings would be revealed to be bull shit. A few during that time risked their lives to translate the bible into modern languages just to be able to get the word out.

OTOH, you not being able to get a song of *random pop artist* for free isnt' going to harm you one bit; in fact, it probably will keep your intelligence level from going downhill.

Quote:

If I bought a physical book today and managed to circulate it amongst a million people I would hardly be charged with piracy.Not only does the notion sound ludicrous to most but it would be impossible to control such a vector. If I did the same with an ebook, today that would be looked upon quite differently because control can be exerted. (Aside, piracy is piracy no matter the magnitude).

Maybe we are agreeing here. Yes you would. But why would anyone go through the effort of doing so is probably why no one thinks it actually happens. Computers just make it so much easier to duplicate digital data.

Ah yes, copyright. It is indeed the concept of who gets to decide. And who does get to decide? You, me? What gives you the right to decide? The law? The law that evolves as the networks of control evolve? And to what end?

Where did I say anything about burning people or breaking copyright are the same thing??? How can you even accuse me of that? Do you just simply think I see this as a white and black issue and therefore lump me with all the other posters that come along on such a topic?

I have been accused of being opaque with my arguments at times but I'm baffled that you remotely think I'm alluding to most of the stuff you dredged up and so crudely too as well.

Ah yes, copyright. It is indeed the concept of who gets to decide. And who does get to decide? You, me? What gives you the right to decide? The law? The law that evolves as the networks of control evolve? And to what end?

I think you have more of a problem with how the RIAA treats its artists/writers/customers than actual copyright law, or maybe not.

Quote:

Where did I say anything about burning people or breaking copyright are the same thing??? How can you even accuse me of that? Do you just simply think I see this as a white and black issue and therefore lump me with all the other posters that come along on such a topic?

I have been accused of being opaque with my arguments at times but I'm baffled that you remotely think I'm alluding to most of the stuff you dredged up and so crudely too as well.

You brought up the whole control issue. At least the RIAA offers something.

To be fair to you, I think we would have to post back and forth a bit more to get what you are really saying or for me and others to fully understand. I think I see it but, I don't have that much time to do that .

If I bought a physical book today and managed to circulate it amongst a million people I would hardly be charged with piracy. Not only does the notion sound ludicrous to most but it would be impossible to control such a vector. If I did the same with an ebook, today that would be looked upon quite differently because control can be exerted. (Aside, piracy is piracy no matter the magnitude).

I'm pretty certain act of renting out books is also covered under Copyright law.

If I bought a physical book today and managed to circulate it amongst a million people I would hardly be charged with piracy. Not only does the notion sound ludicrous to most but it would be impossible to control such a vector. If I did the same with an ebook, today that would be looked upon quite differently because control can be exerted. (Aside, piracy is piracy no matter the magnitude).

I'm pretty certain act of renting out books is also covered under Copyright law.

Well renting out videos is legal some how. Example Blockbuster. Local book stores do trades or buy backs which is equal to renting.These corporate scumbags are rich enough aren't they?

Sharing will always find a way. Friends share especially broke ones.Its what makes poor people not so poor.

You are equating the catholic church's behavior of burning people alive for owning a bible to sharing a song. The church did it since if people read the bible, nearly all of the catholic's teachings would be revealed to be bull shit. A few during that time risked their lives to translate the bible into modern languages just to be able to get the word out.

Whoa, whoa. Factual errors here.

The Church didn't burn people for owning a bible. They tried to censor non Latin translations, and they did burn books other than the bible (and occasionally the authors). The Church did do this to maintain control; after all if you needed a priest to read the Bible for you, then you needed the Church. If you could read for yourself, you didn't need a priest (or so the Church feared, this is actually not true). They didn't fear the bible being revealed as "bull shit," and if anything the widespread literacy that followed non-Latin translations and printings contributed to the spread of Christianity, not any decline.

Other than that, the idea of equating activities of the Church to illegally downloading a song is agreed to be plain silly.

You are equating the catholic church's behavior of burning people alive for owning a bible to sharing a song. The church did it since if people read the bible, nearly all of the catholic's teachings would be revealed to be bull shit. A few during that time risked their lives to translate the bible into modern languages just to be able to get the word out.

Whoa, whoa. Factual errors here.

The Church didn't burn people for owning a bible. They tried to censor non Latin translations, and they did burn books other than the bible (and occasionally the authors). The Church did do this to maintain control; after all if you needed a priest to read the Bible for you, then you needed the Church. If you could read for yourself, you didn't need a priest (or so the Church feared, this is actually not true). They didn't fear the bible being revealed as "bull shit," and if anything the widespread literacy that followed non-Latin translations and printings contributed to the spread of Christianity, not any decline.

Other than that, the idea of equating activities of the Church to illegally downloading a song is agreed to be plain silly.

How many interpretations are there of Christianity at this time? And how many issues are there from the very harsh wording (there are more than a few ways to interpret the original hebrew, latin and greek text) of the "king James" english translation? The reaction to the mass translation and printing did many things, some can rightly be considered potentially damaging while others perhaps not.

Supposedly the Catholic church had been able to keep a lid on the loaning of money at interest (a issue as old as civilization), but the various interpretations that came about during the reformation may have let that genie out of its lamp.

Equating the internet to the printing press is not far of target regarding the wide ranging effects it has on the world. And trying to curtail one use of it may mess with other uses that can be of great benefit down the road. You can be sure that any tool that can filter the latest Disney out of the net can also filter out evidence of atrocities. And such tools are deaf, dumb and blind regarding how it is being used.

Can someone please post a link to a service other than iTunes that has a large database (not just the crap on the charts) of legit music purchasable outside of the US at a bitrate of at least 320kbps and in the format of my choosing (failing FLAC, i'll settle for OGG)?

...yeah - didn't think so -.-

P2P networks - a legitimate market attempting to supply itself because mainstream content providers are stuck in long lost era where dinosaurs still roam the land

Personally, I keep checking back for the pirate bay shirt that I want to be in stock in my size. It'll be $27, plus shipping, for one stupid t-shirt. Crazily overpriced. But... Lord knows they've earned it. So, I'm actually willing to pay for things. Just not the content industry's content. They can shove off.

lol I'd like one of their shirts as well but I'll probably never get one because I would never trust them enough to provide my credit card information to them to pay for one. Now if I was only able to make a copy of their shirts. Now that would be ironic.

Can someone please post a link to a service other than iTunes that has a large database (not just the crap on the charts) of legit music purchasable outside of the US at a bitrate of at least 320kbps and in the format of my choosing (failing FLAC, i'll settle for OGG)?

...yeah - didn't think so -.-

P2P networks - a legitimate market attempting to supply itself because mainstream content providers are stuck in long lost era where dinosaurs still roam the land

So why dismiss iTunes? What you're basically telling me is that you have access to the product that you want but choose to torrent it instead.

lol I'd like one of their shirts as well but I'll probably never get one because I would never trust them enough to provide my credit card information to them to pay for one. Now if I was only able to make a copy of their shirts. Now that would be ironic.

Kinda funny that, imo if there is any company likely to be utterly honest and straight it would be piratebay, if for no other reason than all the companies that want them crushed, if there was so much as the slightest stain it would be used against them.

Can someone please post a link to a service other than iTunes that has a large database (not just the crap on the charts) of legit music purchasable outside of the US at a bitrate of at least 320kbps and in the format of my choosing (failing FLAC, i'll settle for OGG)?

...yeah - didn't think so -.-

P2P networks - a legitimate market attempting to supply itself because mainstream content providers are stuck in long lost era where dinosaurs still roam the land

So why dismiss iTunes? What you're basically telling me is that you have access to the product that you want but choose to torrent it instead.

Well off the top of my head: iTunes only offer mp3's. A format I find inferior to ogg (you're mileage may vary), the program is bloated and installs components unnecessary for it's purpose, the iTunes catalogue is not as complete as you think, etc.

So no - I don't have access to the product I want. Hence the initial post.

Well off the top of my head: iTunes only offer mp3's. A format I find inferior to ogg (you're mileage may vary), the program is bloated and installs components unnecessary for it's purpose, the iTunes catalogue is not as complete as you think, etc.

You forgot to mention iTunes has no blender attachment. .... and since it's no good for dicing carrots....you simply have no choice but to pirate....

Can someone please post a link to a service other than iTunes that has a large database (not just the crap on the charts) of legit music purchasable outside of the US at a bitrate of at least 320kbps and in the format of my choosing (failing FLAC, i'll settle for OGG)?

...yeah - didn't think so -.-

P2P networks - a legitimate market attempting to supply itself because mainstream content providers are stuck in long lost era where dinosaurs still roam the land

So why dismiss iTunes? What you're basically telling me is that you have access to the product that you want but choose to torrent it instead.

The driving force and only real advantage of market Liberalism is suposd to be choice.... a content industry endorsed monopoly != choice.

Well off the top of my head: iTunes only offer mp3's. A format I find inferior to ogg (you're mileage may vary), the program is bloated and installs components unnecessary for it's purpose, the iTunes catalogue is not as complete as you think, etc.

So no - I don't have access to the product I want. Hence the initial post.

None of the music sold from the iTunes music store is .mp3. All of it is sold in the .aac format, and although it encodes at an average bitrate of 240 kbps, the quality of the songs I get from an iTunes purchase is still pretty good to me. I guess my ears aren't sophisticated enough to tell the difference.

In times of debt bubble bursting people are picking food over crappy music, who would have thought.

To add to this, I'll toss in my anecdote. I actually saw a couple walk across the street to purchase tomatoes because the store across the street had them for five cents less than the store we were already inside. If people are willing to put effort into saving five cents on food, they're damn sure going to put effort into saving money on entertainment. Red Box equals $1 dollar per day. Why pay $25 dollars to own what you'll only watch once, and can do so for $1 dollar.

I regularly see DVD's at the checkout lanes for impulse purchase. Problem is, they're priced between $15 - $25 dollars. Worse is that we're talking about old flicks (including crap like the Power Ranger films), not new releases. No wonder DVD and BluRay sales are down 40%+.

Can someone please post a link to a service other than iTunes that has a large database (not just the crap on the charts) of legit music purchasable outside of the US at a bitrate of at least 320kbps and in the format of my choosing (failing FLAC, i'll settle for OGG)?

...yeah - didn't think so -.-

P2P networks - a legitimate market attempting to supply itself because mainstream content providers are stuck in long lost era where dinosaurs still roam the land

So why dismiss iTunes? What you're basically telling me is that you have access to the product that you want but choose to torrent it instead.

Um, no. iTunes has little in the way of indie music. If it isn't big label (or fake indie sponsored by big labels), you pretty much can't find it on iTunes. More importantly is that you have virtually no selection in the format you can choose. Pricing is also ridiculous. Never mind the garbage that is iTunes for Windows. I refuse to use the service as well, it's just a load of crap. And none of that addresses his main point of being outside the US where a large portion of content inside of digital services isn't available to those who exist outside of the North American continent.

Why is it so hard to adopt the AllofMP3.com model where users pay money based upon file size and can choose any format they want (from MP3, MP4, WMV and FLAC all they way to Monkey Audio and true CDA)? There's a reason so many people signed up for that service!